Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Kochi, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner having worked as a contingent worker, retired from service on 31.05.2011 after his attaining the age of superannuation. Though he has been regularly paid his pensionary benefits, in the light of the pay revision that took place subsequent to the petitioner's retirement, with effect from the date when he was in service, he claims arrears of pay benefits in the light of the retrospective implementation of the pay revision. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have made Ext.P3 representation to the 1st respondent. Complaining of delay in the payment of the arrears of retirement benefits in terms of W.P.(C.) No.27042/2014 -2-
the pay revision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, to his credit, has not disputed the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits. At any rate, he has cited the financial stringency of the Corporation and sought further time in settling the arrears due to the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to settle the arrears of terminal benefits to the petitioner in terms of the pay revision -2009 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No.27042/2014 -3-